On Ockham's Razor, Kurt Lambeck, president of the Australian Academy of Science, reviews Ian Plimer's error-filled book.
If this had been written by an honours student, I would have failed it with the comment: You have obviously trawled through a lot of material but the critical analysis is missing. Supporting arguments and unsupported arguments in the literature are not distinguished or properly referenced, and you have left the impression that you have not developed an understanding of the processes involved. Rewrite!
I would then identify a number of specific issues which, while in isolation could be seen as minor, collectively indicate carelessness at best, and at worst an attempt to undermine the integrity of the science case. Here are just a few examples.
There is geological evidence that suggests that the Earth has gone through extreme glacial episodes in the distant past. Plimer states that change from extreme glacial to extreme warm conditions occurred within a few centuries. Whether this is correct or not is a legitimate point of debate. But further on, he states that to raise sea level by 4 to 6 metres from the melting of West Antarctica, in the near future, is Hollywood fantasy. That may well be true. But there is no consistency in his argument. If at one time the planet can exit from near-global glaciation conditions in a few hundred years, then why can a comparatively minor adjustment of the West Antarctica ice sheet not occur on the same time scale? Is it a case of seeing only what you want to see?
Plimer uses the example of ocean floor doming and sea floor volcanism to illustrate geological processes that have modified sea level. He states that during such events monstrous amounts of heat are released into the oceans and that huge volumes of water are displaced, causing sea level to rise. If I use his example of a 1000km x 1000km plateau raised by 1 kilometre, the volume of displaced water is about one million cubic kilometres, which when distributed over the oceans brings sea level up by about 3 metres. But the formation of these plateaux occur on a time scale of a million years and longer, and the associated rate of change is only of the order say, .03 millimetres per year, and this is about 100 times less than the rates observed today. Likewise, Plimer's monstrous amounts of heat released into the oceans do not produce a measurable global signal on the human time scale.
Much research has gone into modelling those kinds of earth deformation in order to understand the long-term, sea-level effects, and realistic order of magnitude estimates can be made. While impressive when viewed on the geological time scales, changes of 100-200 metres over 1 to 100 million years, imply rates of change that are insignificant when compared with the modern record of sea level change.
None of this research is referred to. Instead, he states that models for present sea level rise do not take them into consideration. The peer-reviewed scientific debate is extensive and combative, but there is an accepted conclusion that modern sea level rise, corrected for the geological background signals, can only be explained by a major contribution from thermal expansion of the oceans and from melting of mountain glaciers, and that both of these changes are consistent with the observed and modelled temperature changes during the past century. ...
To give his arguments a semblance of respectability the book is replete with references. But the choice is very selective. Plimer will quote, for example, a paper that appears to support his argument, but then he does not mention that the conclusions therein have been completely refuted in subsequent papers. Elsewhere, he refers to a specific question raised in published work but does not mention that this issue has subsequently been resolved, has been incorporated in subsequent analyses, and is no longer relevant. Or he simply misquotes the work or takes it out of context. An example of this is a reference to my own in the Mediterranean where he gives quite a misleading twist to what we actually concluded.
Other examples can be identified in this section, and throughout the book. Together they point to either carelessness, to a lack of understanding of the underlying science, or to an attempt to see the world through tinted spectacles.
I predict that Plimer will respond to this by denying that his science has been criticised, claiming that Lambeck's criticism was merely an ad hominem attack, and by making personal attacks on Lambeck.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
> But there is no consistency in his argument. If at one time the planet can exit from near-global glaciation conditions in a few hundred years, then why can a comparatively minor adjustment of the West Antarctica ice sheet not occur on the same time scale?
OK, I was going to utter some excuse along the lines of 'But... Al Gore is Fat, so Plimer was right!' or 'Clinton Did It Too!', but that'll be too boring, so instead I'll just let you imagine that there's a Liberal Fascism joke here.
bi-IJI,
Hoist by your own 'petar' (look the Shakespeare up).
"comparatively minor adjustment of the West Antarctica ice sheet not occur on the same time scale?"
A few hundred years then, not the immediate threat the warministas would have you believe.
It didn't originate with Shakespeare, and petard is standard in current use.
And as for your other wrongness, could it be that problems might arise before a few hundred years go by and sea levels rise to that degree? Might problems already be arising, in fact?
Dave Andrews: "A few hundred years then, not the immediate threat the warministas would have you believe."
Oh, so it's not my grandchildren who'll inherit a competely trashed plant, but *their* grandchildren? So why are we worrying?
Did you think someone was saying the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice sheets were going to melt, oh I don't know, next Thursday?
Dave, your argument shows you are a bonehead.
It's not the other way around, so this is not argument by ad hominem, it's just me pointing out that you're a bonehead.
5 meters sea rise in a century? No problem.
The best part about Plimer's book is that it will be cited by future denialists as a reliable source. Because clearly the peer-reviewed literature is biased towards the AGW model 'unfairly'.
May I identify a number of specific issues which, while in isolation could be seen as minor, collectively indicate carelessness at best
Only the addition of greenhouse gases lead to a satisfactory explanation of what has been observed and all the recent results are showing that the changes in temperature, in sea level, and in ocean acidification are tracking near the upper levels of the IPCC forecasts.
Temperatures are dropping contrary to the IPCC, sea level rise is slowing contrary to the IPCC and the arguments regarding ocean acidification are ongoing and a total mess IMHO. (I note yet another recent dispute by Steve McIntyre concerning misleading data interpretation in peer reviewed, published science)
Do the costs of such disruption exceed the short-term costs of implementing technologies and practices that lead to a stabilisation of greenhouse gas emissions?
Very easy to say professor and it slips off the tongue rather elegantly but to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions would require everyone in the world to reduce their carbon footprint to the level of Ned Kelly and his family. Hardly a short term cost.
can 9-billion people in 2050 survive if there is a global disruption of our climate during this century?
A 9 billion population will create all sorts of global problems â recent history has shown that the effects of AGW will be the least of them. Perhaps the Professor could point me to the disasters weâve already experienced due to the supposed climate change of the past 30 years or should I wait and see what the ANUâs Climate Change Institute photographic competition comes up with.
janama:
How many times do you have to be told? The Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE Change forecasts CLIMATE, not WEATHER. The latest estimate of CLIMATE, meaning the latest 30-year average, is still warmer than ANY previous estimate in the record.
Chris O'Neill - this is what the IPCC said about climate in Chapter 9 of ar4-wg1, page 666 (eek! :)
"Estimates of the climate sensitivity are now better
constrained by observations. Estimates based on observational
constraints indicate that it is very likely that the equilibrium
climate sensitivity is larger than [b]1.5°C[/b] with a most likely value
between [b]2°C and 3°C.[/b]"
Here is the chart of Observed temperatures over the past 30 years of climate change.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2009/plot/rss/from:19…
a warming, as you say, of .4C over 30 years which means 1.333C over 100 years - doesn't match the IPCC prediction does it, which is what I said.
I'm fascinated that not one of the deniers commenting here has addressed the substance of Lambeck's comments about Plimer's book
Remedy: http://www.google.com/search?q="climate+sensitivity"+"current+rate+of+change"
From the above search, this is good:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=g4e5KBqC4XoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA13&…
Shorter Dave Andrews:
'Plimer contradicts himself' is the 'Plimer is right!' of Liberal Fascism.
Shorter janama:
Global warming, which doesn't exist (according to McIntyre who is always right), will cost Joe the Plumber a lot of money to fix. Also, if we extend past temperature trends to predict future trends naively, they differ from the IPCC's predictions based on complex climate models -- our prediction differs from theirs, so their prediction must be wrong!
Therefore, Plimer's contradiction isn't a contradiction.
I would have thought a large part of the world's population has yet to reach Ned Kelly's level. And as I understand it, if first world populations reduced their carbon footprint to that of the 1940's (not a huge drop in living standards) we'd be well on the way to averting catastrophe.
I'm fascinated that not one of the deniers commenting here has addressed the substance of Lambeck's comments about Plimer's book
pardon - what was I addressing?
Also, if we extend past temperature trends to predict future trends naively, they differ from the IPCC's predictions based on complex climate models -- our prediction differs from theirs, so their prediction must be wrong!
I wasn't predicting anything - I was comparing the computer model's (IPPC's)predictions with the emperical evidence. So you are saying it's not happening yet - we have to wait another 30 years before we can assess the reliability of the computer predictions?...sure.
Shorter janama:
If we extrapolate a present trend to the future, it's not a prediction, it's a... whatever. Therefore, Plimer's contradiction isn't a contradiction.
"I'm fascinated that not one of the deniers commenting here has addressed the substance of Lambeck's comments about Plimer's book"
You must be new...
janama:
janama, let us know exactly where in:
it says:
I'd guess we'd all like to know where, if anywhere, you learned to read.
Chris,enough of the childish ad hominem comments OK.The temperatures for the last 3 years have been falling and even IPCC people are in agreement.Look up Hadley or UAH.
Shorter timwells:
I'll now cast a spell, Harry-Potter-style, to banish your argument! Ad -- hominem --!
janama:
What exactly are you referring to?
The empirical evidence is 0.5 deg C of warming in the past 30 years. IPCC prediction for those past 30 years was something similar to that so what is your point?
I don't know of anyone (apart from science denialists) who says that climatic warming (meaning based on at least 30 years of data) is not happening.
TimWells: "The temperatures for the last 3 years have been falling.."
So what?
I'd guess we'd all like to know where, if anywhere, you learned to read
clearly from a better education establishment than you, but that's not important, what is important is that the temperature today is only .09C above where it was 30 years ago. Do you have some saved heat tucked in your tucker box?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/rss-may-2009-520.png…
global warming? I bet you can't tell the difference.
Shorter janama:
I contradict myself, just like Plimer. But that's not important, because though I contradict myself, I Am Still Right!
I don't know of anyone (apart from science denialists) who says that climatic warming (meaning based on at least 30 years of data) is not happening.
Of course you don't - I bet most of your friends's work titles include "Global Warming" or "Climate Change".
why don't you ask Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940, Webster, Massachusetts) is a Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
that would be a start.
Shorter janama:
I claim that you, Chris O'Neill, said that global warming hasn't started yet. Next, I claim that you, Chris O'Neill, said that global warming has started, but that's only because you didn't ask Richard Lindzen. My logic is perfect.
Therefore, Plimer's contradiction isn't a contradiction.
timwells:
Ad hom: You are an idiot, therefore your argument must be wrong.
Not ad hom: Your argument is wrong because of X, Y, Z. BTW, you are an idiot.
Please check what the meaning of ad hom is before you accuse someone of it.
Don't you people ever pay attention. I said above:
There is no way anyone can determine climate signal from 3 years of data. Of course the weather has been cooler over the past 16 months but 16 months of weather does not tell us what the climate is. 30 years of weather are needed to tell us what the climate is and any estimate of climate change must use all of at least 30 years of data.
There is no way anyone can determine climate signal from 3 years of data
Take the 9 years from 1980 - 1989 . Prior to 1980 the temps were dropping and some were suggesting a new ice age - yet it didn't stop Hansen calling unprecedented global warming based on 9 years of warming - so what's changed. The past 9 years have been cooling. Where's Hansen now?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2001/to:2009/plot/wti/from:20…
BTW - bi -- IJI - F**K off! your shorter versions are pathetic, not amusing or smart... get a life!
janama writes:
If we ever needed evidence that janama is a troll, this seems to be it. He has had it explained to him why this isn't true several times in earlier threads, but he's still repeating it. Fingers in the ears, "I can't hear you, la la la."
Temperatures are not dropping, janama, and even if they were it wouldn't be "contrary to the IPCC" unless the drop were statistically significant.
I am not a Troll. I argue my points and refrain from abusing others even though I'd like to.
so you are saying 9 years is not statistically significant?
timwells writes:
Read my lips: "Climate is defined as mean regional or global weather over a period of 30 years or more." Not 3 years.
Janama I stand by my original comment - you are discussing various issue about global warming and related data, but there is a specific post at the top of this lengthening thread in which Kurt Lambeck raises some specific issues with Plimer's logic... Should I bother to continue to encourage you to actually debate the points in question? Experience tells me that evidence does not seem to impact on arguments on this topic.
janama writes:
Hansen's observations were based on the 109 years of data from 1880 to 1988.
Let's examine janama's statement that "The past 9 years have been cooling."
Here are the NASA GISS temperature anomalies for the past 9 years:
YearAnom
200042
200157
200268
200367
200460
200576
200666
200774
200855
If we agree anomaly on year, we find that the slope of the year term is 1.8, which is up, not down. Not statistically significant, of course (t = 1.4), because 9 years isn't enough data for statistical significance, but up.
Warming.
Not cooling.
We all clear on that? Except for janama, I mean?
@zoot: The problem with world populations reverting to global emissions levels of 1940's (perhaps we shouldn't count the war years) is that the global population today is much larger. So that's not going to be a simple thing to do. We need to start thinking of reducing dependency on fossil fuels anyway so it's time to put serious money into looking at alternative sources.
the global temp for May was .09C over 30 years.
Boo!
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/rss-may-2009.png
"The past 9 years have been cooling."
even not, when looking at [Hadcrut3](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2009/mean:1/p…)
i fear we are not using your preferred dataset?
the global temp for May was .09C over 30 years.
and how much higher than the 30 year average was the temperature on the 4th of june?
not everything that has the term "30 years" inside, is climate!
janama, you *are* a troll. Your points have nothing to do with the post. I will delete any more off-topic comments you make here, as well as responses to them.
40 Tim,
Good. Whatever the content of the OP of any climate-related thread, without fail some denialist ignores it and goes off on the same old "Temperatures are dropping contrary to the IPCC" and "a warming, as you say, of .4C over 30 years which means 1.333C over 100 years - doesn't match the IPCC prediction does it" rant or some variation of that.
One thing I've noticed above all else is the ability of these fantasists to hold contradictory views without even being aware of it. More than anything else, that exposes their peculiar mental condition.
Sorry if this is off-topic!
[*Another off-topic comment deleted.
janama, you are banned from commenting at all for one week. TDL*]
TrueSceptic:
As we all know, logical consistency is merely a refuge of witch-hunting Inquisitors trying to rigidly impose the Orthodoxy of the Church of Logic. And as any Galileo-like 'skeptic' will know, one can easily ward off the evil influence of these Inquisitors by waving their wands and shouting "Ad -- Hominem --!", preferably while in Hogwarts uniform.
42 janama,
Read the OP. The OP is about an assessment of Plimer's book. Where do you address that? You just go off on the usual denialist nonsense.
Oh, and **wuff! wuff!**
Shorter janama:
Warming is cooling.
{Take that bi--IJI.}
43 bi,
I don't know whether it's sad or funny but you are so right.
janama:
Comparing the weather from thirty years ago with today's weather is NOT a low noise estimate of climate change. It's just a blatant cherry-pick.
janama:
Would that be the Richard Lindzen who "acknowledges that global warming is real"?
Looks like we can include janama in the group of people who don't know of anyone (apart from science denialists) who says that climatic warming (meaning based on at least 30 years of data) is not happening since his attempt to come up with someone was an utter failure.
Just a humble opinion, but yor jammy troll was doing a deliberate distraction to take the heat off Plimer.
Mustn't tarnish the reputation of a denier god don't ya know.
48 Chris,
And is the middle name supposed to impress us? How about Siegfried Frederick Singer? Is that more sciency than Fred Singer?
I have banned janama for a week. Please stop feeding the troll.
Excellent.
Please, back to the book.
That's why I was attracted to this thread.
OK, back to Lambeck,
Surely it is a bit rich for him, a contributor to the IPCC process, to criticise Plimer for quoting papers that support his argument when the whole premise of the IPCC is to find evidence of the "risk of human-induced climate change"?
luminous beauty,
"5 meters sea rise in a century"
Wasn't there lot more ice around then, covering all of Canada, much of Northern US and Northern Europe? And probably also much more around Antarctica?
So no wonder that warming led to rising sea level. But in today's world I don't recall Toronto or New York being buried under hundreds of metres of ice.
Tim, I can't see the killfile link. Broken?
Dave,
There is still plenty of ice to melt.
Seeing how Melt pulse 1A represented â1.0C temp rise over 500 years and we're looking at a possible 2.5C or more rise in the next 100yrs, the phrase 'on the same time scale' is a first order approximation.
Hmm. I thought the premise of the IPCC was to use the evidence to quantify the "risk of human-induced climate change" - as evil and all-powerful as the UN is, I'm not aware that IPCC reviewers have to sign a Discovery Institute-style "Statement of Faith" on commencement of employment.
Trolling never prospers
Keep that notion rolling
For if it ever prospers
None will call it trolling.
Shorter janama: Since people are succesfully trolled, i'm an angler, not just trolling.
Dave Andrew @53
Firstly, Dave have you misrepresented the source you cite? I believe that that the IPCC was established to assess âthe scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.â
Secondly, Plimer is criticised by many reference checkers for [misrepresenting papers]( http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91 ) that he cites. This is different to just âquoting papers the support his argumentâ.
Thirdly, Lambeck criticises Plimer beacuse:
Dave A @53:
"Surely it is a bit rich for him, a contributor to the IPCC process, to criticise Plimer for quoting papers that support his argument when the whole premise of the IPCC is to find evidence of the "risk of human-induced climate change"?"
Of what possible relevance to the criticisms of Plimer's book is Lambeck's status as a contributor to the IPCC? Unless you can show how this status has skewed Lambeck's critical faculties, the answer has to be - none. Secondly, Lambeck did not criticise Plimer's book for "quoting papers that support his argument". Saying that he did shows either you're guilty of the same sins Lambeck lambasts Plimer for, or you haven't read Lambeck's piece properly.
Shorter Dave Andrews:
Clinton Did It Too! Clinton Did It Too! I can't help using that excuse, I love it so much, I'm honing it into an art form.
Also, I use a forecast of the future as if it's a hindcast of the past, so the IPCC is wrong.
Long-time lurker, first time commentator here...
Most of you people commenting here on this site are completely, categorically barking mad.
Seriously, on the one hand, if you are literate and tech-savvy enough to participate in these debates, but still think that anthropogenic climate change doesn't exist, or can be explained away, then you're obviously not (impossibly) stupid. You must be capable of rational thought, may even have been to Uni.
Unfortunately, the only rational conclusion from the consistent, direct observation of climate change and the quality of scientific research and understanding applied to the problem (I don't need to provide references, it's frequently provided by the site host) is that it's happening. Ergo, you must be insane to reach any other conclusion.
Those of you in the second bunch, here trying to hammer some small degree of enlightemnent into the insane denialists, I just have to ask you why? What motivates you? They drag you down to their level and then kick you with experience. You're never going to win, you know. Thisis a sisyphean task, in the original meaning of the term. Sisyphus was bound to his wall, but you ahve the option towalk aaway. To not do so is to commit to a futility, and isn't that a sign of madness?
62 wilful,
You forget 2 things: the fact that passers-by might get the wrong idea if the denidiot nonsense is not refuted; and **entertainment**.
wilful,
In defense of the "second bunch"...I think perhaps you are correct. You cannot cure stupidity, but just maybe the spread of infection can be stopped.
wilful,
Washing the dishes and taking out the trash are Sisyphean tasks.
Never finished, but absolutely essential if one doesn't wish to be buried in garbage and filthy crockery.
"The struggle itself...is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy."
---Albert Camus
I was born with a congenital defect which leads me to repetitively bang my head against brick walls and other unintelligent objects.
Sigh.
>wilful: Those of you in the second bunch, here trying to hammer some small degree of enlightemnent into the insane denialists, I just have to ask you why? What motivates you?
I don't do much of it here because others who frequent this place are better at it. But I do in a couple of less expert forums because it keeps me sharp on the subject. That's useful in the non-internet world when I encounter deniers puffed up with the latest propaganda from talk radio, Fox News, Drudge, etc. It makes them easy to deflate, and deflate them we must.
I've noticed the exact same pseudoscientific technique with HIV Denialists. For example they'll cite a paper that showed false positives on some HIV tests after flu vaccinations and not mention that the problem was investigated and rectified.
It is a particularly dangerous from of pseudoscience because if a reader bothers to read the reference (most won't) they'll find that it does say what the pseudoscientist says it does. Somebody is trained in the field or who has been following the field for some time will immediately recognise that the quote or paper has been taken out of context from the totality of the literature but a casual observer won't.
In my experience it is necessary to not just read the reference that is given but to follow the papers that have cited it to see what has happened in the intervening years. In many cases HIV Denialists cite papers from the 90s or 80s and ignore subsequent work.
In an ideal world this would not be necessary. Scientific reviews are meant to give a broad coverage of the entire literature on a particular subject. Normally we can trust the author to fairly represent the literature. People like Plimer abuse this trust. The fact that he is targetting a lay audience with this deception makes it unforgiveable.
Chris Noble,
Plimer gives 2,311 references. Lambeck makes a generalised statement without giving any specific examples.
Now I am not in a position to judge how good all of Plimer's references are, but I guess the same is true for you and all who post here, including Tim.
If the tables were turned and it was Plimer making a generalised claim about a work by Lambeck that was favourable to AGW, I'm sure Tim would have already lambasted it on several occassions
bi-IJI,
You got a thing about Clinton? Perhaps you can't even make sense to yourself.
Plimer gives 2,311 references. Lambeck makes a generalised statement without giving any specific examples.
actually he gives specific examples. for example to his own work:
Or he simply misquotes the work or takes it out of context. An example of this is a reference to my own in the Mediterranean where he gives quite a misleading twist to what we actually concluded.
are you sure you read what Tim wrote and quoted above?
OT, Tim, I know, but perhaps you should consider giving janama his very own thread.
That way, those of us who wish to poke fun at him know where to go to do it, and the rest of us can be free to discuss the point at issue in a civilised and intelligent way.
I'd second David, Tim's dedicated troll thread seems to have worked quite well for two other notorious perseverative ineducables.
sod,
That is not a specific example at all. It says nothing about the work Lambeck did in the Mediterranean or what the misleading twist might have been. It is deliberately vague, probably because it then is impossible to challenge in any way.
Dave,
Sure it is a specific example, look up Lambeck from Plimer's references and you can do your own investigations.
That is how you would prove Lambeck wrong. That is how Tim has shown so many errors in Plimer's error filled book.
Dave Andrews.
I am curious.
Are you saying that you support Plimer's interpretation of the science?
Are you saying that the numbers of errors and of misrepresentations in the book are acceptable for a work of this nature?
Are you saying that the book would provide an accurate and reliable understanding of climatology, and of the nature of climate change (especially in the AGW context), to a lay person who is ignorant of the field prior to reading H&E?
Out of curiosity, have you considered a critique of Darwin's Origin of Species in a vein similar to those focussing on Plimer's book? What do you think Darwin's error/misrepresentation/misinterpretation rate would be? Most importantly, how high do you think that Darwin's error rate could be and still be scientifically* acceptable?
What would be an acceptable error rate for 'A Brief History of Time', 'An Inconvenient Truth', and other 'popular' science books?
What contemporary popular texts do you think are comparable to the targeted audience and the intent of Plimer's book? What do you estimate the error rates of these books to be?
For each of the examples of books that I (and you) might mention, what do you think the maximum error rate could be without compromising the validity of the underlying claims?
Just wondering, because as a scientist myself I personally would be ashamed to have had published a book with as much crap in it as is present in "Heaven and Earth: The Missing Science [sic]"...
*Creationist objections based upon ideology and misrepresentation/misinterpretation of science notwithstanding.
Bernard J,
I am not saying I either support or do not support Plimer's interpretation of the science. The book is a work of synthesis and obviously it is hard for a scientist in one field to master all the other fields involved in climate science. So there might indeed be errors.
But that does not necessarily mean that the book deserves the opprobium that blogs like this have heaped upon it, since it probably also contains much that is correct. Tim is not, as far as I know, a scientist connected to climate or geophysical research in any way so his kneejerk response to rubbish the book can only come from 'political' motives.To state as errors Plimer's reference to certain people Tim obviously has decided are politically incorrect on this subject, just demonstrates that his (Tim's) approach to the book is far from scientific.
sod, That is not a specific example at all. It says nothing about the work Lambeck did in the Mediterranean or what the misleading twist might have been. It is deliberately vague, probably because it then is impossible to challenge in any way.
well, what Lambeck did there, should follow from his work, and we can for the moment assume that he knows what he did.
so did you check the quote, before you made the claim that this was "deliberately vague", "probably because it then is impossible to challenge"?
if it is impossible to challenge, how could you challenge it? by staying ignorant?
But that does not necessarily mean that the book deserves the opprobium that blogs like this have heaped upon it, since it probably also contains much that is correct. Tim is not, as far as I know, a scientist connected to climate or geophysical research in any way so his kneejerk response to rubbish the book can only come from 'political' motives.To state as errors Plimer's reference to certain people Tim obviously has decided are politically incorrect on this subject, just demonstrates that his (Tim's) approach to the book is far from scientific.
all your claims, on the other hand, are at best "vague".
where is your support that this is "kneejerk"?
references to certain people (like the completely demolished Beck) of course show a problem!
For Christ's sweet sake, Dave, your pal Plimer believes the sun is made out of iron. He's completely incompetent outside his own field of geology. Every real scientist who has reviewed the book agrees it's garbage. Did you even read the responses to individual points people made?
Dave Andrews.
I still await your comments on [acceptable error rates](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/lambeck_on_plimer.php#comment-1…).
See, the problem is, that as filled with errors as H&E is, its utility is about the same as a broken watch, which apparently is 'correct' twice per day (for an analog version) but where the knowing of when it is correct is impossible to discern.
This argument falls flat in the light of the fact that many pre-eminent climatologists and geologists/geophysicists dismiss Plimer's claims as indefensible non-scientific rubbish. The fact that people such as Tim Lambert, not "connected to climate or geophysical research", can pull down Plimer's house of cards is, in the end, all the more more crushing an indictment.
No matter which way you turn it, the book is a stinking specimen of scientific scatology.
Bernard J,
"many pre-eminent climatologists and geologists/geophysicists dismiss Plimer's claims as indefensible non-scientific rubbish."
OK then, give me the names and links and I will look at what they say.
BPL,
I don't ever recall saying Plimer was a "pal" of mine.But again give me the names of the 'real scientists' and links to their reviews and I will read what they say.
Dave Andrews - "give me the names of the 'real scientists' and links to their reviews"
Don't be so damned lazy.
For a start, how about scrolling up to the top of THIS PAGE?
Then look through other posts ON THIS BLOG for scientists like Malcom Walter, Ian Enting and Michael Ashley.
That's if you could be bothered.
If reading's too hard for you, you could listen to David Karoly on the ABC:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2593166.htm
Dave Andrews.
I think that Gaz has said it well.
The links are in front of your face on this thread, and on the many other Plimer-related thread that Tim Lambert has running, and they also easily found at RealClimate and on other sites. Does your incapacity to find the opinions of high-fliers in science render these opinions non-existent?!
And note the renown of the people that have something to say about Plimer's nonsense. On the other hand, Plimer's biggest claim to fame is his notoriety arising from his failed suit of Creationists - his original work in climatology, or his presidency of a prominent scientific body, are much less apparent...
BernardJ,
Of course I can scroll to the top of the blog and Tim's other posts. I was just interested to see if you personally could back up your statement. Apparently not.
Oh, come on! What an utterly pathetic, irrelevant, and juvenile red herring. Your request to my statement "many pre-eminent climatologists and geologists/geophysicists dismiss Plimer's claims as indefensible non-scientific rubbish" was:
and you were promptly directed to the links and the names by several people, including myself. However, since you seem to be so completely incapable of finding even your nose in front of your face, look at these for starters (more qualified professionals will no doubt comment as the book percolates overseas) and then return with your considered 'expert' responses.
[Kurt Lambeck](http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2589206.htm), president of the Australian Academy of Science, and whose research "is directed at the interactions between the solid earth, the oceans, ice sheets and atmosphere".
Professor [Malcom Walter](http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2586947.htm), of the Australian Academy of Science.
[Physicist](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=50) [R. E. Benestad](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/plimer_and_arctic_warming.php#c…).
Professor [David Karoly](http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2593166.htm) of the University of Melbourne.
[Michael Ashley](http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25433059-5003900,00.html), Professor of Astrophysics at the University of NSW.
[Ian Enting](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_enting_is_checking_plimers…), "mathematical physicist and the AMSI/MASCOS Professorial Fellow at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Mathematics and Statistics of Complex Systems (MASCOS) [based at The University of Melbourne](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_G._Enting)".
[Dr Andrew Glikson](http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/05/plimer-wants-to-talk-science-ok-her…), [Department of Earth and Marine Sciences](http://ems.anu.edu.au/people/glikson/).
ARC [Professor Mike Sandiford](http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25434629-17803,00.html) of the School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne.
[Professor Barry Brook](http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/), Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change and Director of Climate Science at The Environment Institute, University of Adelaide.
Do you need me to cut the crusts off your fairy bread too?
And in case you think it's slipped my mind, I still await your comments on [acceptable error rates](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/lambeck_on_plimer.php#comment-1…).
Bernard J,
If you look at the sequence of posts you will actually see that you opening remarks in #85 are factually incorrect.
Thanks for the links, however, though several overlap with this site and I note Prof Sandiford of University of Melbourne says-
"In the same way as Plimer, I understand there is nothing new in such change. I, too, worry that alarmist claims that the planet is imperilled speak to a woeful ignorance of the geological record and confuse the crisis we face."
Thanks for the links, however, though several overlap with this site and I note Prof Sandiford of University of Melbourne says-
wow, denialist ability to quote out of context. you just scored 10 of 10 points!
Dave, I've repaired some citations of [Plimer reviews](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/plimer_and_arctic_warming.php#c…) for you. Looks like the sort of thing you are wanting
Thanks Dave, I'll just fill in a bit more of your quote for you, just in case you're worried about giving the wrong impression:
"In the same way as Plimer, I understand there is nothing new in such change. I, too, worry that alarmist claims that the planet is imperilled speak to a woeful ignorance of the geological record and confuse the crisis we face. IT IS FUTURE GENERATIONS, NOT THE PLANET, that should be the focus of our concern. We have no useful moral tools for understanding how to frame issues of intergenerational equity raised by climate disruption. Confounding the geological record may not much matter for the planet - it has seen it all before - but could affect future generations, who will have to bear any burdens of rising seas and changing climates.
Geology tells us clearly that not for several hundred million years have we had so much CO2 in the atmosphere with so much ice on the land. Independently of any model predictions of the climate scientists, the geological record serves a warning. In raising CO2 levels we are committing to a world different from that on which civilisation has developed, to a world where the rules of our present ice-age epoch will no longer apply, a world of higher seas.
Unlike Plimer, my reading of the geological record tells me we should be cautious how we modify our atmosphere lest we condemn many future peoples to the fate of the lastVicmanians."
Chris.
Note that Mike Sandiford said "Unlike Plimer, my reading of the geological record tells me we should be cautious how we modify our atmosphere lest we condemn many future peoples to the fate of the lastVicmanians."
"Cautious" does not imply any extreme urgency.
Note also that that sea level rise took 8000 years and the Vicmanians were by no means as technologically advanced as we are now to say the least.
Again this example does not imply any urgent comparison with today's world. Its strange that Prof Sandiford should actually use it.
Dave Andrews @ 90
Strange, just like [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/one_of_the_claims_that.php#comm…) was really interesting.
Dave you have a "really interesting" and "strange" ability to find the answers you are looking for by deconstructing semantics rather then using science.
Dave Andrews:
So how long do you think we should be twidling our thumbs for?
And the 5-6 deg C global temperature rise that caused it took about that long too. The way we're going we will produce that rise in temperature in 200 years. Sandiford also points out:
"When the last land bridge broke about 13,000 years ago, seas were rising at more - POSSIBLY MUCH MORE - than 2m a century."
and this was from a temperature rise that took about 8,000 years. Not only are we committing future generations to a higher sea level, we are committing them to a period of very rapid sea level rise where they will have to rebuild coastal infrastructure every 50 years or maybe more often. What right do we have to cause this?
Well, not when you ignore the fact that the expected rate of temperature rise is 40 times the rate of rise at the end of the last ice-age AND you ignore the fact that even with the rate of temperature rise at the end of the last ice-age the rate of sea level rise exceeded 2 metres per century.
Maybe he doesn't ignore the facts like you do.
Chris,
And its also strange that you take no account of the technological capacity of modern society to adapt to relatively modest changes in climate/sea level. You seem to think we have no options but to passively await our "fate" like the Vicmanians.
And its also strange that you take no account of the technological capacity of modern society to adapt to relatively modest changes in climate/sea level. You seem to think we have no options but to passively await our "fate" like the Vicmanians.
are you talking about modern societies like [Bangladesh?](http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/43035000/jpg/_43035449_umbrellas_…)
are you talking about the technological capacities that we saw in action in [New Orleans?](http://farm1.static.flickr.com/31/43339467_fbed13883f.jpg)
Sod,
I guess you are an intelligent person and you therefore know full well the problems associated with the links you just provided.
There are many areas of Bangladesh where the delta islands are sinking and have been for many years. Plus being in deltas the the topography is naturally altered over time as the rivers v tidal flow changes. Of course in the past it was not always possible to picture the situation and so many floods went unnoticed in the West.
Again, as an intelligent person you know that there were many problems with the way New Orleans was allowed to develop,and with the fact the levees were not maintained.Plus the Civil Defence response in the run up to Katrina was woeful.
Neither of these examples are necessarily linked to climate change, and as an intelligent person I guess you deep down understand that.